SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey

I'm troubleshooting a cable modem problem. Win XP he SP2 with all the
current updates. My connection speed slows to a crawl and rebooting the
computer fixes the problem. I've tried a variety of solutions to no avail.

As part of my troubleshooting, I have disable SpywareBlaster's
protection. Since the cable modem problem is very intermittent and it
may take two weeks to see the results of my testing, I thought I would
ask if anyone in this newsgroup is using SpywareBlaster and SeaMonkey.

SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox so it should also
protect SeaMonkey?

--
JD..

JD wrote:[color=blue]
>[...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
>As part of my troubleshooting,
>I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
>SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
>so it should also protect SeaMonkey?[/color]

Others may disagree,
but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
[url]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:msqvd6TtnwIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpywareBlaster+to.scan+differs-from-*-other-*-spyware-programs+blacklisting.the.CLSID+after-*-*-*-installed+ActiveX[/url]
If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
(and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
I don't see that this app does anything more
than consume cycles and RAM.
For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.

The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.

JeffM wrote:[color=blue]
> JD wrote:[color=green]
>> [...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
>> As part of my troubleshooting,
>> I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
>> SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
>> so it should also protect SeaMonkey?[/color]
>
> Others may disagree,
> but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
> [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:msqvd6TtnwIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpywareBlaster+to.scan+differs-from-*-other-*-spyware-programs+blacklisting.the.CLSID+after-*-*-*-installed+ActiveX[/url]
> If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
> (and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
> I don't see that this app does anything more
> than consume cycles and RAM.
> For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
>
> The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
> I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
>[/color]

I didn't know there was an ActiveX plugin for Gecko and I certainly
wouldn't want to have it installed! Didn't really think about SeaMonkey
not needing the SB protection but it doesn't, does it?

Thanks!

--
JD..

JeffM wrote:[color=blue]
> JD wrote:[color=green]
>> [...]cable modem problem[...]rebooting[...]fixes the problem[...]
>> As part of my troubleshooting,
>> I have disable SpywareBlaster's protection.{...]
>> SpywareBlaster offers protection for Mozilla/Firefox
>> so it should also protect SeaMonkey?[/color]
>
> Others may disagree,
> but I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
> [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:msqvd6TtnwIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpywareBlaster+to.scan+differs-from-*-other-*-spyware-programs+blacklisting.the.CLSID+after-*-*-*-installed+ActiveX[/url]
> If you don't have the ActiveX plug-in for Gecko installed
> (and really, WHY WOULD YOU?)
> I don't see that this app does anything more
> than consume cycles and RAM.
> For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
>
> The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
> I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
>[/color]

Maybe I should have looked at SpywareBlaster a little closer?

It does set protection in IE for ActiveX but it doesn't do that for
Mozilla/Firefox. All it does for M/F is set protection from a large
number of cookies. It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only
for IE. Interesting?

--
JD..

JeffM wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
>>[url]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:msqvd6TtnwIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpywareBlaster+to.scan+differs-from-*-other-*-spyware-programs+blacklisting.the.CLSID+after-*-*-*-installed+ActiveX[/url]
>>[...]For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
>>[/color][/color]
JD wrote:[color=blue]
>It does set protection in IE for ActiveX
>but it doesn't do that for Mozilla/Firefox.
>[/color]
Not being the slightest bit interested in ActiveX
(except for AVOIDING it),
I didn't investigate that aspect of the app deeply.
My knowledge is that it makes Registry tweaks,
so the logic does follow.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
>>I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
>>[/color]
>All it does for M/F is set protection from a large number of cookies.
>[/color]
Which, as I noted, you can do without further bloat.
As I said:[color=blue][color=green]
>>For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only for IE.
>[/color]
Yup. All that crap is IN THE REGISTRY **for IE**.
I have noted this before elsewhere.
Again: A much over-hyped app.
[color=blue]
>Interesting?
>[/color]
Re-affirms my (incomplete) knowledge and confirms my intuitions.

If you are worried about rogue sites,
the Microsoft Most Valuable Professions
have a HOSTS file you should use.
[url]http://www.google.com/search?q=HOSTS.File[/url]

Without ActiveX and Active Scripting,
rogue sites are relatively impotent.
For Gecko, NoScripts (for JavaScript)
handles the last remaining bump in the road.

If you're still paranoid:
[url]http://www.google.com/search?q=McAfee+SiteAdvisor+plug-in[/url]

JeffM wrote:[color=blue]
> JeffM wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I have NEVER seen the advantage of this app.
>>> [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:msqvd6TtnwIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpywareBlaster+to.scan+differs-from-*-other-*-spyware-programs+blacklisting.the.CLSID+after-*-*-*-installed+ActiveX[/url]
>>> [...]For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.
>>>[/color][/color]
> JD wrote:[color=green]
>> It does set protection in IE for ActiveX
>> but it doesn't do that for Mozilla/Firefox.
>>[/color]
> Not being the slightest bit interested in ActiveX
> (except for AVOIDING it),
> I didn't investigate that aspect of the app deeply.
> My knowledge is that it makes Registry tweaks,
> so the logic does follow.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> The other "advantage" listed on the Wikipedia page
>>> I get by simply write-protecting my Cookies.txt file.
>>>[/color]
>> All it does for M/F is set protection from a large number of cookies.
>>[/color]
> Which, as I noted, you can do without further bloat.
> As I said:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> For non-Internet Exploder users, it is just hype IMO.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> It also sets protection for Restricted Sites but only for IE.
>>[/color]
> Yup. All that crap is IN THE REGISTRY **for IE**.
> I have noted this before elsewhere.
> Again: A much over-hyped app.
>[color=green]
>> Interesting?
>>[/color]
> Re-affirms my (incomplete) knowledge and confirms my intuitions.
>
> If you are worried about rogue sites,
> the Microsoft Most Valuable Professions
> have a HOSTS file you should use.
> [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=HOSTS.File[/url]
>
> Without ActiveX and Active Scripting,
> rogue sites are relatively impotent.
> For Gecko, NoScripts (for JavaScript)
> handles the last remaining bump in the road.
>
> If you're still paranoid:
> [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=McAfee+SiteAdvisor+plug-in[/url]
>[/color]

I use the mvps hosts file. I use the PrefBar which has the ability to
disable JavaScript. I don't surf the web enough to use the McAfee Site
Advisor plug-in.

Thanks for your input!

--
JD..